by Covell, Mike
The Echo, a London based newspaper, featured the following, dated September 12th 1888,
THE INQUEST.
Mr. Wynne Baxter resumed the inquiry this afternoon, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, into the circumstances attending the murder of Annie Chapman, whose body was discovered in the back-yard of 29, Hanbury-street. The police were represented by Inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson, and Inspector Chandler. It was thought at an early hour of the proceedings that the inquiry would not terminate to-day, the police having a mass of evidence to lay before the Coroner. There was great interest manifested in the case, and long before Mr. Baxter arrived every seat in the Court was occupied. There was an anxious crowd waiting in the precincts of the building, as it was rumoured that some startling statements were to be forthcoming. IDENTIFICATION OF DECEASED. Tomkin Smith, a printer's warehouseman, was now called to identify the deceased. He said she was his only sister. Her name was Annie Chapman. She was the widow of John Chapman, a coachman, who lived at Windsor at the time of his death. Her age was 47. Her husband died in 1886- about Christmas time. When witness saw her last she did not say where she was living, nor what she was doing. Do you know anything of her associates? - No. MEN CALLED BY DAVIS. James Kemp, living at Shadwell, deposed- I work for Mr. Bailey, 23A, Hanbury-street, Spitalfields, and am a packing-case maker. I go to my work at six o'clock. On Saturday last I got there about ten minutes or a quarter past six. It struck six by Whitechapel Church as I passed up Brick-lane. Was the gate at Hanbury-street closed? - There were some other men there- workmen. I generally wait until some of my mates come up. Were you called by anyone? - Yes, an old man named Davis called me. Did he come up? - No; he came out of his house, 29, Hanbury-street, with a belt off his waist in his hand, and said, “Men, come here.” He was then in the middle of the road. I went with James Green, who was standing with me. There were more than two of us there. I went to the passage of 29, Hanbury-street. Into the back-yard? - No. I only went to the back door. I saw the dead woman. She was lying in the yard, at the bottom of the steps. She lay between the steps and the partition to the next yard. Where was her head? - Her head was against the house. Her body was not up against the house. Her feet were lying in the direction of our premises at the back. Did you notice whether her clothes were disarranged? - They were disarranged- thrown back. Her face was visible. Did you remain to examine her? - I did not go down the steps, and I don't believe anyone else did until Inspector Chandler came. Did you see she was dead? - I believe she was. I saw a handkerchief, and that seemed “soaked” into her throat. DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD? I could not see any flowing blood, but she was smeared with blood- her face and hands, as if she had struggled. Did you notice any other injuries? - No, Sir; I did not. You spoke about something of a struggle. What was it? - I thought she had been lying on her back, and had struggled to free herself- “as if she had fought for her throat.” Was there any blood about her clothes? - I did not notice; I was too much frightened to. The Coroner - I only wish to ask you if you saw any casually. Witness - I did not notice any particularly. I saw some water, which seemed to me as if it had been thrown at her. Part of her body was lying beside her. I went on to the kerb to see if I could see a policeman. They generally march on duty at about that time. What did you do then? - After that I went and had some brandy. When I had returned to the house a mob had assembled. Was there anyone in your shop before you? - Yes, our foreman. He arrives about ten minutes to six and writes our orders down. James Green, 36, Acland-street, Burdett-road, Bow, stated that it was six o'clock when he passed the London Hospital on Saturday morning. He got to his work, as a packing-case maker, at ten minutes past six, and saw the last witness there. Witness saw the body of the deceased. It was not touched until Inspector Chandler arrived. AMELIA RICHARDSON, living at 29, Hanbury-street, said: - I occupy half of the house- the lower part. In the back shop I carry on the business of a packing-case maker. My son is John Richardson, 37. A man, Francis Tidy, works for me there. The man came about eight o'clock. He is often late at his work. My son lives at John-street, and works in Spitalfields Market. About six o'clock my grandson, Thomas Richardson, fourteen years of age, came upstairs, and said, “Granny, there's a woman murdered.” There had been a great noise in the passage, so I sent him down to see what was the matter. It was then he said, “Granny, a woman is murdered.” I went down. There was no one in the yard, but some people were in the passage. I occupy the first floor front room. My grandson slept in the same room on Friday night. I went to bed at about half-past nine. Did you sleep all night? - Oh, no. I was very wakeful. I should think I was awake half the night. I was awake at three, and only dozed afterwards. Did you hear any noise? - No; I heard no noise during the night. Mr. Walker occupies the first-floor back room. He makes lawn tennis hats, and is an old gentleman. His son sleeps with him. He is about 27, but is an imbecile. A lunatic? - No, but weak-minded, and very inoffensive. On the ground floor Mrs. Harderman occupies one room, with a son, 16 years of age. Mrs. Harderman uses the room as a cat's meat shop- “cuts it up and has a walk.” I occupy the back parlour. On Friday night I had a prayer-meeting? The Coroner - A what? Witness - A prayer-meeting there, until half-past nine. I locked the room then, and it was locked until I came down in the morning. Upstairs there are two floors. John Davies and his wife and a little girl share one room- third floor front. An old lady that I keep- Sarah Cox- occupies the third floor back. Do you keep her out of charity? - Yes. Mr. Tomkins and his wife have the second floor front, with a little girl. On Saturday morning I called Tomkins at a few minutes to four. I heard him leave the house.
The Daily News, a London based newspaper, published the following, dated September 12th 1888,
WHITECHAPEL MURDER. A FRESH CLUE. FURTHER PARTICULARS. Although no fresh arrests were made yesterday in connection with the Whitechapel murders, the police have obtained a clue which, although at present of a very slender character, may, they think, develop into an important piece of evidence. It appears that on the morning of the murder of the woman Chapman, a man, whose name is for the present withheld, was in Hanbury-street, and noticed a woman in the company of two men. They appeared to be quarrelling, and he heard the men make use of threats. Such an incident is, however, very common in the district, and the man, after taking a good look at the disputants, passed on his way. It is not known whether the man made a statement to the police as soon as he heard of the murder. If he did so, no action was taken upon it until yesterday, when it seems to have struck the police that Piser might have been one of the men seen in Hanbury-street at the time in question. The man was requested to attend, at Leman-street Police Station, and on his arrival about one o'clock some twenty men, mostly brought in from the adjacent thoroughfare, were paraded before him. The result somewhat startled the police, for the man, without a moment's hesitation, pointed to John Piser as the man whom he heard threatening a woman in Hanbury-street on the morning of the murder. Piser calmly protested that the man was entirely mistaken, but he was put back to the cells. The authorities do not express much confidence in their ability to establish a case against Piser. Piser's friends and relatives are not seriously alarmed at the alleged identification, for they are confident they will be able to prove an alibi without difficulty. Beyond the alleged identification, there is practically no evidence against Piser. His lodgings have been thoroughly searched more than once, and nothing of a suspicious character has been found. Strenuous efforts have been made to find the rings torn from Chapman's fingers by the murderer, but not a trace of them has been found. It is probable that they have been destroyed, and with them it is feared disappears the most hopeful means of bringing the murderer to justice. The police during the afternoon and evening made (illegible) inquiries into the statements made by the man who professed to identify Piser. The manner of this man, who is apparently of Spanish blood and displays a blue ribbon on his coat, did not inspire much confidence in his veracity, and he was severely cross-examined by a sort of informal tr
ibunal consisting of experienced detective officers. The witness added to his first statement that he not only saw the prisoner in Hanbury-street on the morning of the murder, but that he actually took him by the collar when he was about to strike the woman. The man, it appears, first volunteered his statement on Monday, and he has since displayed anxiety to view the remains of the murdered woman Chapman. This curiosity, which was really believed to have been the inspiring motive of his voluntary testimony, was not gratified. Piser is physically a very weak man, and for that reason does not keep at work very closely. He is ruptured and in other ways infirm, and has been under hospital treatment on and off for a long time past. Each time the police searched Piser's lodgings they found no trace of blood-stained clothing, or indeed anything of a suspicious character; but they carried off five knives, which were at once subjected to chemical analysis. All are of the class used in the leather currying trade, having blades about six inches in length, with stout handles sometimes notched in a peculiar way. There was to all appearance no blood either on the blades or the handles. Meanwhile the police continued their inquiries into the witnesses? statements, with the result that about eight o'clock they arrived at the conclusion that the man had not stated the truth, and that there were no grounds for keeping Piser any longer in custody. He was accordingly set at liberty, and at once proceeded to Mulberry-street, where he received the congratulations of his relatives and friends. The conduct of the man who professed to identify Piser caused much indignation. The man Pigott is still under surveillance at the Whitechapel Infirmary. It has been suggested that he is feigning insanity, but the physicians who have examined him are of a contrary opinion. Another communication says: An important discovery, which throws some considerable light upon the movements of the murderer immediately after the committal of the crime, was made yesterday afternoon. A little girl happened to be walking in the back garden or yard of the house, 25, Hanbury-street, the next house but one to the scene of the murder, when her attention was attracted to peculiar marks on the wall and on the garden path. She communicated the discovery to Detective-Inspector Chandler, who had just called at the house in order to make a plan of the back premises and the three houses for the use of the coroner at the inquest, which will be (illegible) The whole of the yard was then care (illegible) with the result that a bloody trail was (illegible) marked for a distance of five or six (illegible) in the direction of the back door of the house. Further investigation left no doubt that the trail was that of the murderer, who it was evident after finishing his sanguinary work had passed through or over the dividing fence between Numbers 29 and 27, and thence into the garden of No. 25. On the wall of the last house there was found a curious smear which had probably been made by the murderer, who, alarmed by the blood-soaked state of his coat, took off that garment and knocked it against the wall. Abutting on the end of the yard at 25 are the works of Mr. Bailey, a packing-case maker. In the yard of this establishment in an out of the way corner the police found some crumpled paper stained, almost saturated, with blood. It was evident that the murderer had found the paper in the yard of 25, and had wiped his hands with it, afterwards throwing it over the wall into Bailey's premises. Another fresh point was elicited in the form of a statement made by a woman named Darrell, who minds carts on market mornings in Spitalfields Market. She asserts that about half-past five on Saturday morning she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say “Will you?” and the woman replied “Yes,” and they then disappeared. Mrs. Darrell does not think she could identify the couple. Mr. S. Montagu, M.P., has offered £100 as a reward for the capture of the Whitechapel murderer.
September 13th 1888
The Echo, a London based newspaper, featured the following, dated September 13th 1888,
WHITECHAPEL MURDERS. POLICE SAID TO BE ON THE TRACK. INSECURITY IN THE EAST END. THE HOLLOWAY ARREST. POLICE MAKING VIGOROUS EFFORTS. The police efforts are today being vigorously proceeded with, especially in the direction of settling the question of the exact time at which the murder of Annie Chapman actually occurred. Some doubt was originally thrown by them on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and that no signs of the murder were then apparent. Proof is now being sought to establish the fact that Richardson was right as to the time. The search of the police is altogether of a thorough and systematic character. They have accounted for a vast number of the habitués of the common lodging houses in the neighbourhood, but some few men are still unaccounted for. There are a large number of the pedlar class, who frequent the district, and who start on systematic journeys. A few of those on their return will be asked as to whether they saw the murdered woman in the vicinity of Spitalfields Market on Saturday morning last, and, if so, who were her companions. It is extraordinary that a woman who was so well known in the district cannot be traced for four hours. If her whereabouts during the time in question can be ascertained, a very tangible of information will, of course, have been attained. A DIFFICULTY IN THEIR WAY. One of the greatest difficulties in the way of the police is the disposition to withhold evidence. The police believe that vital evidence is being withheld from them by some women who were associates of the two last murdered women because of their terror of sharing a like fate. Several of them have, they believe, actually left the neighhbourhood under the influence of this fear. The Exchange Telegraph Company learns that up to one o'clock today the police had made no other arrests. The detectives from Scotland yard, as well as those belonging to the Bethnal green Division, which has charge of the Buck's row murder, met at the Commercial street Station ti make arrangements with the police as to closely watching certain low quarters during the night. The police still adhere to the statement that they believe they are on the track of the murderer. This individual is being carefully looked for, but they cannot arrest him until they have more evidence to act upon. As evidence of the insecurity prevailing in certain parts of the East end - notably Hanbury street and vicinity - about five persons were accosted yesterday by a gang of roughs, who, amongst other misdeeds, deprived an old man aged 80 of his gold watch and chain. THE HOUR OF THE CRIME. The police have received some important information as to the hour at which the crime was committed, and the possible neighbourhood of the murderer. A woman named Durrell has communicated with the authorities in reference to these points. She originally made a statement to the effect that at about half past five o'clock on the morning of the murder she saw a man and a woman conversing outside of No. 29 Hanbury street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. She was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and there she identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury street. If this identification can be relied upon, it is obviously an important piece of evidence, as it fixes with precision the time at which the crime was committed, and corroborates the statement of John Richardson, who went into the yard at a quarter to five, and has consistently and persistently declared that the body was not then on the premises. Davis, the man who first saw the corpse, went into the yard shortly after six o'clock. Assuming, therefore, that the various witnesses have spoken the truth - which there is not the slightest reason to doubt - the murder must have been committed between half past five and six o'clock and the murderer must have walked through the streets in almost broad daylight without attracting attention, although he must have been at the time more or less stained with blood. This seems incredible, and it has certainly strengthened the belief of many of those engaged in the case that the murderer had not far to go to reach his lodgings. ARE THEY BLOODSTAINS AFTER ALL? The slender clue afforded by what has been described as a blood trail in the yard of 25 Hanbury street, was eagerly taken up, but so far it has not resulted in anything that can be described as important evidence, Some persons, including members of the police force, who have examined the marks, have expressed some doubt
as to their being blood stains; but others engaged in the investigation assert there is some reason to believe that they are really the tracks of the assassin. In regard to the bloodstained paper found in Bailey's packing case yard adjoining No. 25, Hanbury street, there is practically no room to doubt that it was used by the murderer to cleanse his hands, and thrown by him where it was found. The little girl Laura Sickings and the other inmates of Nos. 29, 27, and 25 have been questioned by the police, and the paper has been handed over to the police doctors for more scientific examination. It has been asserted that the police do not attach much importance to this fresh evidence, but such a statement is misleading, and entirely unauthorised. The detectives engaged in the case have from the first wisely kept their own counsel, and with equal wisdom they have not failed to investigate every scrap of information, no matter how apparently trivial it may appear to be, obtained by or imparted to them in the course of their own inquiries. THE INQUEST. Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, Coroner for the South Eastern Division of Middlesex, resumed the inquest, this afternoon, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel road, on the body of Annie Chapman, who was discovered murdered on Saturday morning, in the back yard of No. 29 Hanbury street, Spitalfields. Detective Inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson, Inspector Chandler, and Inspector Beck watched the case on behalf of the Chief Commissioner of Police. POLICE INSPECTOR'S EVIDENCE. Inspector Joseph Chandler deposed - On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial street, at the corner of Hanbury street, when I saw several men running up. One of them said, “Another woman has been murdered.” I at once went with him to the house, 29 Hanbury street. I went into the yard. Were there any people there? - There were several persons in the passage, but no one in the yard. I saw the body of the deceased lying on the ground on her back. Her head was nearly two feet from the wall at the bottom of the steps. How far from the steps? - Not more than six or nine inches. Her left hand was resting on her left breast; the right hand was lying down by her right side. Her legs were drawn up, and her clothing was above her knees. Portions of the viscera were lying by her right shoulder, and some pieces of skin were also the left shoulder, in a pool of blood. (Sensation.) Was the body lying parallel with the steps? - With the fence, Sir, dividing the yard. I remained there myself, and sent for the divisional surgeon - Dr. Phillips. When assistance arrived the body was removed to the mortuary. No one touched the body until the doctor arrived. The doctor came about half past six. And examined the body? - Yes, and directed that it should be removed to the mortuary. I found a piece of muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket comb in case lying near the feet of the body. A small piece of paper and a portion of an envelope were near her head. The paper contained two pills. On the back of the envelope was an embossed seal - in blue - of the Sussex Regiment. On the other side of the envelope was the letter “M,” apparently in a man's handwriting. Any postage stamp? - No; but there was the post mark. “London, August 28, 1888.” Any other marks? - On the lower part of the envelope were the letters “Sp” (supposed to be the first two letters of “Spitalfields”). There was a leather apron, saturated with wet, lying in the yard, together with with a nail box, a piece of flat steel, identified by Mrs. Richardson as a spring. This was close to the body. The apron and the mail box have also been identified by Mrs. Richardson. Was there any appearance of a struggle there? - No. Are the palings strongly erected? - No. Would they bear the weight of a man getting over them? - They might, but they did not give any evidence of that. There was no breakage. I examined the adjoining yard. None of the palings were then broken, although they have since been broken. On the palings in the yard, near the body, were stains of blood, but no blood in the adjoining yard. On the wall of No. 25 there were some marks. They have been seen by Dr. Phillips. Those marks are not blood. They were only bloodstains in the immediate neighbourhood of the body. Any other blood? - At the head of the body there were a few spots - splashes - and also on the ground. Did you search the clothing? - Yes, at the mortuary. The outside jacket - a long, black jacket, which came down to the knees - had bloodstains round the neck, both on the inside and outside, and two or three spots on the left arm. The condition of the jacket did not indicate a struggle. A large pocket was worn under the skirt. It was torn down the front and also at the side, but it contained nothing. What about the dress? - It was a black skirt - a little blood on the off side. At the back? - Yes. There were two bodices, both stained with blood. Was she wearing a corset? - No. There were no injuries to the clothing at the lower part of her body. Her stockings were bloodstained. She had her boots on. Did you see young Richardson? - I saw him later on - about seven o'clock - in the passage. Did he tell you he had been to the house that morning? - Yes, at about a quarter to five. He told me he went to the back door, and looked down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market. Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - Not then. Did he say he was sure the woman was not there when he went? - Yes. By the Jury - The back door opens outwards, into the yard on the left hand. Probably, Richardson might not have seen the body on account of the door. The Foreman: Are you going to call the pensioner who has been alluded to? - We have not yet been able to find him. The Foreman - His evidence is very important. The Coroner - If the pensioner knows his own interest I should think he would come forward himself. The inquiry is proceeding.
